Apple : CAFC Alert

Apple is bit at CAFC: The Court reversed and remanded a preliminary injunction obtained at the District Court against Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus Smartphone

Michael Caridi | October 17, 2012

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Ltd. et al.

Decided: October 11, 2012

Panel:  Prost, Moore, and Reyna.  Opinion by Prost.

Summary

The CAFC reversed the District Court’s finding that there was irreparable harm to Apple by allowing sales of the Galaxy Nexus.  The CAFC held that there was an insufficient causal nexus between the claimed invention and the sales of the product.  The Court also addressed Apple’s likelihood of success to interject claim construction.


Read More/続きを読む

A showing of causal nexus is required between infringement and alleged harm to patentee

Kumiko Ide | May 23, 2012

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.

May 14, 2012

Panel:  Bryson, Prost, and O’Malley.  Opinion by Bryson.  Concurrence-in-part and dissent-in-part by O’Malley.

Summary

Apple filed suit against Samsung alleging infringement of Apple’s U.S. Design Patent Nos. D593,087 (“the D’087 patent”), D618,677 (“the D’677 patent”), D504,889 (“the D’889 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 (“the ’381 patent”).  Apple’s iPhone embodies the design in the D’087 patent and D’677 patent, and Apple’s iPad embodies the design in the D’889 patent.  Both iPhone and iPad embody a software feature known as the “bounce-back” feature of the ‘381 patent.  The district court denied Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction with respect to each of the accused devices and all four asserted patents.  Apple appealed.  The CAFC affirms the denial of a preliminary injunction with respect to the D’087, D’677, and ’381 patents, but vacates and reminds with respect to the D’889 patent.

アップル社は、サムスン社がアップル社の米国意匠特許第D593,087号(D’087特許)、D618,677号(D’677特許)、D504,889号(D’889特許)と米国特許第7,469,381号(’381特許)を侵害しているとして訴えた。D’087特許及びD’677特許は、アップル社のiPhoneに係わる意匠で、D’889特許は、iPadに係わる意匠である。また、’381特許は、iPhone及びiPadに係わるソフトウェアである。アップル社は、サムスン社のイ号製品について仮差し止めの申し立てをしたが、地裁はこれを却下した。控訴審でCAFCは、D’087特許、D’677特許及び’381特許に関しては地裁の判決を支持したものの、D’889特許についての判決は破棄・差し戻しした。


Read More/続きを読む

Announcing WHDA’s free app for iPhone, iPad and iPod touch

WHDA Blogging Team | April 3, 2012

We interrupt our normal posting to make an exciting announcement!  WHDA has just released “WHDA Connect”—a free app for iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.  With it you can:

*Read our blogs about the latest patent and trademark news, with optional push notifications. Non-native English speakers will find the built-in dictionary helpful – activated when you tap-and-hold a word (requires iOS 5.0+).

*Get simple access to the most powerful IP resources on the web, such as databases of major world patent offices.

*Learn more about our services and skill sets.

*Access our directory of professionals.

*Call or email our professionals with just a tap.

*Simplify visits to our offices with GPS-guided directions.


Read More/続きを読む

Interpretation of statutory two-year time limit for enlarging the scope of claim in a continuing reissue application filed after the two-year window

Yoshiya Nakamura | March 14, 2012

In re Erik P. Staats and Robin D. Lash

March 5, 2012

Panel:  Dyk, O’Malley and Reyna.  Opinion by Dyk.  Concurrence by O’Malley.

Summary:

In 1999, a patent was issued to Staats (assigned to Apple Computer) based on an application for his invention regarding isochronous data transfer in a computer.  The patent discloses two embodiments.  Staats then filed a first reissue application within two years from the issue date of the patent, broadening the scope of claims related to a first embodiment.  Outside the two-year window, he further filed other broadening reissue applications as continuations.  In 2007, almost seven years after the original patent issued, the last broadening reissue application was filed, which is related to a second embodiment.  The PTO’s board held that the last continuing reissue application was not filed within the two-year window because it was not related to the first embodiment which was timely presented within the two-year window.  The CAFC reversed and remanded this case, affirming their precedent case which holds that the statutory two-year limit applies to only the filing date of a reissue application, not to the date that broadened claims are presented.

出願人は、コンピュータのデータトランスファーに関する発明を出願し、特許を取得した。その後、クレーム範囲を広げる再発行特許出願を行った。特許出願の明細書には、発明の2つの態様が開示されていた。最初の再発行特許は第1の態様に関するものであり、審査の結果、再発行特許として発行された。その第1の再発行特許が許可される前に出願人は、継続出願として、第2の再発行出願を行い、さらに第2の再発行出願が許可される前に、第3の再発行出願を行った。この第3の再発行出願には、最初の出願もしくは第1の再発行出願でクレームされていた第1の態様とは異なる第2の態様がクレームされていた。特許庁は、第3の再発行出願は最初の再発行出願とは関係のない発明のクレーム範囲を拡大しようとするものであるから、クレーム範囲の拡大は最初の特許発行日から2年以内にのみ可能であるという米国特許法251条の規定に違反するとして拒絶し、審判部もその拒絶を維持した。CAFCは、審判部の判断は誤りであり、クレームを拡大するための最初の再発行出願が2年以内に行われていたか否かが問題であり、その後の継続再発行出願のクレーム内容が最初の再発行出願のクレーム内容と関係があるか否かは問題ではないと判断した。
Read More/続きを読む

Subscribe | 登録

Archives

Categories

词典 / 辞書 / 사전
  • dictionary
  • dictionary
  • 英語から日本語

Double click on any word on the page or type a word:

Powered by dictionarist.com